Just looked at the last two threads and whilst they are both interesting I think we ought to be careful in reading too much into them. How I chuckled at seeing the number of people who think the tabloids have a bad influence on Britain and how the 'unpatriotic' Guardian comes out on top. But maybe it's just a sign of how much difficulty pollsters have in getting enough working class people into their polls.
As for Curtice he may be right about the election but we need a little historical perspective here. We may have been moving towards a more social liberal/conservative divide for a while but remember that this was a very particular general election - almost unique - and to assume it sets in stone our future political structure is a mistake. I would be surprised if we didn't see some reversal to a traditional left right divide next time which is unlikely to be a specifically Brexit election.
Just looked at the last two threads and whilst they are both interesting I think we ought to be careful in reading too much into them. How I chuckled at seeing the number of people who think the tabloids have a bad influence on Britain and how the 'unpatriotic' Guardian comes out on top. But maybe it's just a sign of how much difficulty pollsters have in getting enough working class people into their polls.
As for Curtice he may be right about the election but we need a little historical perspective here. We may have been moving towards a more social liberal/conservative divide for a while but remember that this was a very particular general election - almost unique - and to assume it sets in stone our future political structure is a mistake. I would be surprised if we didn't see some reversal to a traditional left right divide next time which is unlikely to be a specifically Brexit election.
The Mirror had a net negative rating, the Telegraph a net positive rating
When I was unemployed during the early 1990s, the Tory government did not require me to take the first job that was offered. Instead, it allowed me to find the job that was right for me. That, in turn, put me on course to where I am now: having helped develop a business that employs over 20 well-paid individuals and paying a substantial amount of tax myself. Obviously, not everyone is going to have my fortune, but I am not unique. The vast majority of people are good, decent and honest - a welfare system that is not based on that assumption is ultimately not going to benefit anyone.
Indeed but that's not how the thinking is today. Getting people into work is much more about reducing the unemployment figures (good politically) and reducing the amount to be paid out in JSA and other employment-related welfare than improving the quality of life for individuals.
You can almost predict that with the withdrawal from the EU and "taking back control", we'll start seeing what few rights and benefits workers have chipped away in the name of "competition" or "globalisation" so it's the Working Time Directive now and it'll be the National Living Wage next - it'll have to be reduced so we can compete with Asia and other economies as we seek to make Global Britain an economic powerhouse - in order to ensure a regular supply of cheap labour.
Things like paid holiday, maternity and paternity rights will be on the list as we see the dystopia of Dysonism come to the fore.
It doesn't have to be like that but it'll be couched seductively and without menace but we all know what it will mean.
Not while May is PM, she is economically centrist just socially more conservative.
It would only happen if say Gove or Rees-Mogg became PM, both of whom are economically right-wing and neoliberal.
When I was unemployed during the early 1990s, the Tory government did not require me to take the first job that was offered. Instead, it allowed me to find the job that was right for me. That, in turn, put me on course to where I am now: having helped develop a business that employs over 20 well-paid individuals and paying a substantial amount of tax myself. Obviously, not everyone is going to have my fortune, but I am not unique. The vast majority of people are good, decent and honest - a welfare system that is not based on that assumption is ultimately not going to benefit anyone.
Indeed but that's not how the thinking is today. Getting people into work is much more about reducing the unemployment figures (good politically) and reducing the amount to be paid out in JSA and other employment-related welfare than improving the quality of life for individuals.
You can almost predict that with the withdrawal from the EU and "taking back control", we'll start seeing what few rights and benefits workers have chipped away in the name of "competition" or "globalisation" so it's the Working Time Directive now and it'll be the National Living Wage next - it'll have to be reduced so we can compete with Asia and other economies as we seek to make Global Britain an economic powerhouse - in order to ensure a regular supply of cheap labour.
Things like paid holiday, maternity and paternity rights will be on the list as we see the dystopia of Dysonism come to the fore.
It doesn't have to be like that but it'll be couched seductively and without menace but we all know what it will mean.
Nothing more represents the sickness of the political debate in this country than the endless focus on competing with Asia by reducing employment rights. We have a pretty flexible labour market by western standards. If we really wanted to do something about our competitiveness we would do something about the extortionate cost of land and housing in this country - 2nd only to Monaco I saw claimed recently. But no we can't do anything about that because it wouldn't please the asset owning classes so instead we clamp down on those least able to bear the burden. I'm sorry to say that liberals have been largely silent on this.
When I was unemployed during the early 1990s, the Tory government did not require me to take the first job that was offered. Instead, it allowed me to find the job that was right for me. That, in turn, put me on course to where I am now: having helped develop a business that employs over 20 well-paid individuals and paying a substantial amount of tax myself. Obviously, not everyone is going to have my fortune, but I am not unique. The vast majority of people are good, decent and honest - a welfare system that is not based on that assumption is ultimately not going to benefit anyone.
Indeed but that's not how the thinking is today. Getting people into work is much more about reducing the unemployment figures (good politically) and reducing the amount to be paid out in JSA and other employment-related welfare than improving the quality of life for individuals.
You can almost predict that with the withdrawal from the EU and "taking back control", we'll start seeing what few rights and benefits workers have chipped away in the name of "competition" or "globalisation" so it's the Working Time Directive now and it'll be the National Living Wage next - it'll have to be reduced so we can compete with Asia and other economies as we seek to make Global Britain an economic powerhouse - in order to ensure a regular supply of cheap labour.
Things like paid holiday, maternity and paternity rights will be on the list as we see the dystopia of Dysonism come to the fore.
It doesn't have to be like that but it'll be couched seductively and without menace but we all know what it will mean.
Nothing more represents the sickness of the political debate in this country than the endless focus on competing with Asia by reducing employment rights. We have a pretty flexible labour market by western standards. If we really wanted to do something about our competitiveness we would do something about the extortionate cost of land and housing in this country - 2nd only to Monaco I saw claimed recently. But no we can't do anything about that because it wouldn't please the asset owning classes so instead we clamp down on those least able to bear the burden. I'm sorry to say that liberals have been largely silent on this.
I find it hard to believe the UK is only behind Monaco. Maybe central London, but elsewhere?
And what is the link between house prices and competitiveness? I assume by paying the workers less to make exports cheaper?
In a purely liberal world wearing seat belts or crash helmets would be up to the individual, it is tgey who are taking the risk.
That is a purely libertarian world, if I may say so.
Liberals, as per their philosophy, have to consider the common good. In this way the common good is served by protecting not only the individual but also society at large.
So seat belts and crash helmets protect the individual but also society.
I'm thinking of the costs to NHS (society pays monetarily) from accidents that are worse because said individual was NOT wearing seat belt or crash helmet.
Then the costs paid by first responders (mental health for example) in having to deal with the scenes of accidents that are worse because said individual was NOT wearing seat belt or crash helmet.
< True liberals ie economically and socially liberal would not people linger on benefits but require them to look for and take jobs and base benefits payments on contributions paid in. They also support free movement, free trade and lower taxes and lower regulation.
It is authoritarians who want to tax more and regulate more and spend more, often including on welfare, they just combine that with much tougher controls on immigration and greater emphasis on the nation state rather than globalisation, including sometimes supporting tariffs
"Require them to look for and take" sounds a shade authoritarian. One man's requirement is another one's diktat. Your definition of "liberalism" isn't mine but there you go.
Wanting more regulation in terms of for example improving public safety isn't authoritarian - should we take away the law compelling people to wear seat belts or ride motior bikes with crash helmets ?
Your definitions seem very confused and muddled as though you're trying desperately to make them fit a model - perhaps related to the EU Referendum ?
If people are taxed to pay benefits then clearly that money is being taken from others, hence the looking for work requirement and more contributions based benefits system to ensure the number of benefits claimants and the level of tax taken is minimised, an entirely liberal principle.
In a purely liberal world wearing seat belts or crash helmets would be up to the individual, it is tgey who are taking the risk.
There is nothing confused or muddled about pointing out a genuine liberal should be socially and economically wanting to reduce the size of the state and its control over people's lives while an authoritarian would want to increase the size and influence of the state in both the economic and social fields.
That is a purely libertarian world, if I may say so.
Liberals, as per their philosophy, have to consider the common good. In this way the common good is served by protecting not only the individual but also society at large.
So seat belts and crash helmets protect the individual but also society.
I'm thinking of the costs to NHS (society pays monetarily) from accidents that are worse because said individual was NOT wearing seat belt or crash helmet.
Then the costs paid by first responders (mental health for example) in having to deal with the scenes of accidents that are worse because said individual was NOT wearing seat belt or crash helmet.
On topic, if* you ignore Section 28, the Tories have been very pro gay equality.
One of Mrs Thatcher's earliest acts as Prime Minister was to civilise the Scots and Ulster-Scots by decriminalising homosexuality.
*Spartan if of the day?
Thatcher also voted for Wolfenden (one of the few Tories to do so) and launched the world's biggest AIDS campaign to that time (at Fowlers urging) - saving the lives of tens of thousands of gay men. Unlike the US, or France, for example.
The AIDS campaign in the early ‘80s was extraordinarily brave, in every political sense of the word. Saved tens of thousands of lives.
When I was unemployed during the early 1990s, the Tory government did not require me to take the first job that was offered. Instead, it allowed me to find the job that was right for me. That, in turn, put me on course to where I am now: having helped develop a business that employs over 20 well-paid individuals and paying a substantial amount of tax myself. Obviously, not everyone is going to have my fortune, but I am not unique. The vast majority of people are good, decent and honest - a welfare system that is not based on that assumption is ultimately not going to benefit anyone.
Indeed but that's not how the thinking is today. Getting people into work is much more about reducing the unemployment figures (good politically) and reducing the amount to be paid out in JSA and other employment-related welfare than improving the quality of life for individuals.
You can almost predict that with the withdrawal from the EU and "taking back control", we'll start seeing what few rights and benefits workers have chipped away in the name of "competition" or "globalisation" so it's the Working Time Directive now and it'll be the National Living Wage next - it'll have to be reduced so we can compete with Asia and other economies as we seek to make Global Britain an economic powerhouse - in order to ensure a regular supply of cheap labour.
Things like paid holiday, maternity and paternity rights will be on the list as we see the dystopia of Dysonism come to the fore.
It doesn't have to be like that but it'll be couched seductively and without menace but we all know what it will mean.
Nothing more represents the sickness of the political debate in this country than the endless focus on competing with Asia by reducing employment rights. We have a pretty flexible labour market by western standards. If we really wanted to do something about our competitiveness we would do something about the extortionate cost of land and housing in this country - 2nd only to Monaco I saw claimed recently. But no we can't do anything about that because it wouldn't please the asset owning classes so instead we clamp down on those least able to bear the burden. I'm sorry to say that liberals have been largely silent on this.
Hence Hammond and Javid are pushing a big housebuilding programme which local authorities have to implement through local plans or have even more developments imposed on them
< True liberals ie economically and socially liberal would not people linger on benefits but require them to look for and take jobs and base benefits payments on contributions paid in. They also support free movement, free trade and lower taxes and lower regulation.
It is authoritarians who want to tax more and regulate more and spend more, often including on welfare, they just combine that with much tougher controls on immigration and greater emphasis on the nation state rather than globalisation, including sometimes supporting tariffs
"Require them to look for and take" sounds a shade authoritarian. One man's requirement is another one's diktat. Your definition of "liberalism" isn't mine but there you go.
Wanting more regulation in terms of for example improving public safety isn't authoritarian - should we take away the law compelling people to wear seat belts or ride motior bikes with crash helmets ?
Your definitions seem very confused and muddled as though you're trying desperately to make them fit a model - perhaps related to the EU Referendum ?
When I was unemployed during the early 1990s, the Tory government did not require me to take the first job that was offered. Instead, it allowed me to find the job that was right for me. That, in turn, put me on course to where I am now: having helped develop a business that employs over 20 well-paid individuals and paying a substantial amount of tax myself. Obviously, not everyone is going to have my fortune, but I am not unique. The vast majority of people are good, decent and honest - a welfare system that is not based on that assumption is ultimately not going to benefit anyone.
I think that was acceptable previously when the state was able to afford unemployment benefits. Today we pay child tax credits, we pay housing benefits, we pay unemployment benefits, we pay income tax credits and self employment tax credits. In addition the state pension bill just keeps rising as the retirement age has fallen well behind life expectancy. I've said it here before, with most people agreeing, the only way forwards is to make work pay so we don't need to pay in work benefits which will take the pressure off the unemployed process. When the state is paying £30bn in benefits to people who have jobs, something isn't working properly.
I also agree that people should be given time to find what they want to do and have the state assist them. At the moment only middle class school leavers/graduates have the opportunity to waste a few months to find what they want to do, working class young people are being forced to take the first opportunity that comes their way which can lead to bad life choices.
@faisalislam: Part of the EU27 internal prep presentations... seeks to communicate that the PM’s own red lines have pre-determined where the UK-EU end-state is heading - Canada or Korea style deal ... or No Deal twitter.com/jennifermerode…
@faisalislam: It is basically an invitation by the Commission for the UK Government to have a think about just how crimson are its red lines, their implications, and the mandate for them from the referendum and the election
Yep - those red lines are going to fade into a much lighter shade of pink over the coming year.
Unfortunately the one red line she will not cross is the one she should - freedom of movement. And that is the one that determines we will have Canada or S.Korea not Norway.
'In a purely liberal world wearing seat belts or crash helmets would be up to the individual, it is tgey who are taking the risk.
That is a purely libertarian world, if I may say so.
Liberals, as per their philosophy, have to consider the common good. In this way the common good is served by protecting not only the individual but also society at large.
So seat belts and crash helmets protect the individual but also society.
I'm thinking of the costs to NHS (society pays monetarily) from accidents that are worse because said individual was NOT wearing seat belt or crash helmet.
Then the costs paid by first responders (mental health for example) in having to deal with the scenes of accidents that are worse because said individual was NOT wearing seat belt or crash helmet.'
Pure Liberals are focused on individual freedom, it is authoritarians who are focused on the supposed 'common good.' Individuals can take out private medical insurance or pay the costs themselves for treatment for any injuries suffered from not wearing a seat belt etc in a pure liberal society, not taxpayers.
@faisalislam: Part of the EU27 internal prep presentations... seeks to communicate that the PM’s own red lines have pre-determined where the UK-EU end-state is heading - Canada or Korea style deal ... or No Deal twitter.com/jennifermerode…
@faisalislam: It is basically an invitation by the Commission for the UK Government to have a think about just how crimson are its red lines, their implications, and the mandate for them from the referendum and the election
Yep - those red lines are going to fade into a much lighter shade of pink over the coming year.
Unfortunately the one red line she will not cross is the one she should - freedom of movement. And that is the one that determines we will have Canada or S.Korea not Norway.
No, ending free movement was the main reason Leave won. That has to be respected. Leave would not have got over 50% without promising to end free movement from the EU and especially Eastern Europe. Hence Canada is the only viable trade deal, at least until EU immigration has been brought under control.
Add "We'll have to rerun becas' dem Russians" to the long list of other false Remainy hopes: Chapman, the Article 50 Court Case, the Florence Speech which was going to be a U Turn etc etc...
@faisalislam: Part of the EU27 internal prep presentations... seeks to communicate that the PM’s own red lines have pre-determined where the UK-EU end-state is heading - Canada or Korea style deal ... or No Deal twitter.com/jennifermerode…
@faisalislam: It is basically an invitation by the Commission for the UK Government to have a think about just how crimson are its red lines, their implications, and the mandate for them from the referendum and the election
Yep - those red lines are going to fade into a much lighter shade of pink over the coming year.
Unfortunately the one red line she will not cross is the one she should - freedom of movement. And that is the one that determines we will have Canada or S.Korea not Norway.
I am pretty sure there is a deal to be done on freedom of movement that would involve some tightening of controls, especially as the UK is going to continue to need high levels of immigration; but it would entail the government accepting that whatever came in would still be called freedom of movement and that will be politically difficult - especially for someone like May, who is not very good at politics. The one thing she has going for her on that front is that for the big Brexiteer beasts in the Cabinet FoM does not seem to be such a big thing. For them it is the ECJ. Again, I suspect that there is a deal that can be done on that, based around what is outlined in the Phase One document and transition to a joint court composed of UK and EU27 judges that sits in London as and when required.
The anomalous rate quoted only applies to the portion of people’s earnings between £44,273 and £46,350. That £2,077 will be taxed at 53% rather than what the Mail calls a “much lower” 48% if it was in England.
That means an actual difference of £104 per year (£1101 rather than £997), or exactly £2 a week, for that particular slice of earnings.
Another SNP Bad story blown out of all proportion.
< True liberals ie economically and socially liberal would not people linger on benefits but require them to look for and take jobs and base benefits payments on contributions paid in. They also support free movement, free trade and lower taxes and lower regulation.
It is authoritarians who want to tax more and regulate more and spend more, often including on welfare, they just combine that with much tougher controls on immigration and greater emphasis on the nation state rather than globalisation, including sometimes supporting tariffs
"Require them to look for and take" sounds a shade authoritarian. One man's requirement is another one's diktat. Your definition of "liberalism" isn't mine but there you go.
Wanting more regulation in terms of for example improving public safety isn't authoritarian - should we take away the law compelling people to wear seat belts or ride motior bikes with crash helmets ?
Your definitions seem very confused and muddled as though you're trying desperately to make them fit a model - perhaps related to the EU Referendum ?
When I was unemployed during the early 1990s, the Tory government did not require me to take the first job that was offered. Instead, it allowed me to find the job that was right for me. That, in turn, put me on course to where I am now: having helped develop a business that employs over 20 well-paid individuals and paying a substantial amount of tax myself. Obviously, not everyone is going to have my fortune, but I am not unique. The vast majority of people are good, decent and honest - a welfare system that is not based on that assumption is ultimately not going to benefit anyone.
Yes these are the advantages to not letting the welfare state get out of control. It allows you more leeway when necessary.
Sadly we're well past that point now.
Yep - the Tories have their client vote to look after ;-)
When I was unemployed during the early 1990s, the Tory government did not require me to take the first job that was offered. Instead, it allowed me to find the job that was right for me. That, in turn, put me on course to where I am now: having helped develop a business that employs over 20 well-paid individuals and paying a substantial amount of tax myself. Obviously, not everyone is going to have my fortune, but I am not unique. The vast majority of people are good, decent and honest - a welfare system that is not based on that assumption is ultimately not going to benefit anyone.
I think that was acceptable previously when the state was able to afford unemployment benefits. Today we pay child tax credits, we pay housing benefits, we pay unemployment benefits, we pay income tax credits and self employment tax credits. In addition the state pension bill just keeps rising as the retirement age has fallen well behind life expectancy. I've said it here before, with most people agreeing, the only way forwards is to make work pay so we don't need to pay in work benefits which will take the pressure off the unemployed process. When the state is paying £30bn in benefits to people who have jobs, something isn't working properly.
I also agree that people should be given time to find what they want to do and have the state assist them. At the moment only middle class school leavers/graduates have the opportunity to waste a few months to find what they want to do, working class young people are being forced to take the first opportunity that comes their way which can lead to bad life choices.
Surely working tax credits are one of the main reasons for unemployment being so low. They make it possible to employ people whose labour would otherwise be insufficiently valuable for them to earn a liveable wage. In a sense, they amount to a poorly-implemented citizens' income, and it seems to me that such schemes are necessary for today's workplace, which places little value on unskilled labour, if we are to avoid mass unemployment.
@faisalislam: Part of the EU27 internal prep presentations... seeks to communicate that the PM’s own red lines have pre-determined where the UK-EU end-state is heading - Canada or Korea style deal ... or No Deal twitter.com/jennifermerode…
@faisalislam: It is basically an invitation by the Commission for the UK Government to have a think about just how crimson are its red lines, their implications, and the mandate for them from the referendum and the election
Yep - those red lines are going to fade into a much lighter shade of pink over the coming year.
Unfortunately the one red line she will not cross is the one she should - freedom of movement. And that is the one that determines we will have Canada or S.Korea not Norway.
No, ending free movement was the main reason Leave won. That has to be respected. Leave would not have got over 50% without promising to end free movement from the EU and especially Eastern Europe. Hence Canada is the only viable trade deal, at least until EU immigration has been brought under control.
Ending freedom of movement covers a multitude of sins and leaves plenty of scope for a fudge.
The problem those in the liberal centre have is that they understand that this is a complicated world and that solutions to its inequalities are not easy to find - and even less easier to condense into Tweets and Facebook memes. People like Trump have no such issues and no great attachment to democracy, so do not worry about being dishonest. They will say whatever it takes. But in the end they will either lose power, because their solutions do not work; or they will need to engineer power grabs that allow them to stay in charge even when voters do not want them to.
Neither the liberals or the authoritarians are going to help the left behind people. The liberals will plonk them all on benefits and tell them to shut up, the authoritarians will cause long term issues that will end up doing more harm than good. The only difference is that one side is proposing jobs today, the other has given up. Worse is that the liberals are happy to allow multinational companies to benefit from Western markets (prices, stability) but use eastern labour (cost effective) and let the companies hold on to the huge gains they have made in the process. On the other side of the fence they are at least trying to ensure companies pay their way, even though restrictive trade practices will be harmful.
I am not so sure. If I look at the world's happiest and most prosperous countries I see countries where the liberal centre is in charge. I also see tax reform becoming a much bigger issue. It will take time and it will take international coordination - and we can expect the US to play no part (and the UK, too, post-Brexit), but it is going to happen. In the end, if there is democracy, the liberal centre - right or left, back and forth - will prevail because it is where most people sit. There are convulsions from time to time, but eventually everything reverts to the norm - unless guns prevent it.
One of the subjects missing from all the talk of the EU trade deal is whether it will allow Britain to take the opportunity to force large multinationals selling intangibles onshore. Right now all the UK sales of the major US tech companies go through an EU office in Ireland or Luxembourg.
@faisalislam: Part of the EU27 internal prep presentations... seeks to communicate that the PM’s own red lines have pre-determined where the UK-EU end-state is heading - Canada or Korea style deal ... or No Deal twitter.com/jennifermerode…
@faisalislam: It is basically an invitation by the Commission for the UK Government to have a think about just how crimson are its red lines, their implications, and the mandate for them from the referendum and the election
Yep - those red lines are going to fade into a much lighter shade of pink over the coming year.
Unfortunately the one red line she will not cross is the one she should - freedom of movement. And that is the one that determines we will have Canada or S.Korea not Norway.
No, ending free movement was the main reason Leave won. That has to be respected. Leave would not have got over 50% without promising to end free movement from the EU and especially Eastern Europe. Hence Canada is the only viable trade deal, at least until EU immigration has been brought under control.
Ending freedom of movement covers a multitude of sins and leaves plenty of scope for a fudge.
Only if work permits replace free movement at a minimum
When I was unemployed during the early 1990s, the Tory government did not require me to take the first job that was offered. Instead, it allowed me to find the job that was right for me. That, in turn, put me on course to where I am now: having helped develop a business that employs over 20 well-paid individuals and paying a substantial amount of tax myself. Obviously, not everyone is going to have my fortune, but I am not unique. The vast majority of people are good, decent and honest - a welfare system that is not based on that assumption is ultimately not going to benefit anyone.
In my own experience - it was the assumptions built into the new benefits system which were the really horrible bit. There was very little helping hand and a lot of boot in the face.
I had a brief claim in 2014 for UC/HB, which I thought I'd moved on from - but then a few months later, my former flatmate who had moved to a new address was having letters from bailiffs attempting to reclaim a £1k debt in my name.
The system had made a pile of horrible - and ridiculous - assumptions (I assume) without any human input and concluded I'd claimed HB fraudulently and then automatically sold the artificial debt to a collection agency.
Obviously, I'd followed the system through like a hawk - made sure I ticked every box correctly & only claimed what I could/should be claiming etc etc - and as soon as a human being looked at the claim it got resolved - but the system as it was set up had automatically assumed the worst.
I support the principle of reforming the benefits system to incentivize work etc, but it seems to me like the tories took an already crappy system and managed to screw it up even more. It doesn't need the inbuilt, automated hostility and cynical assumptions.
People need to understand that even if we manage to end free movement and get a significant drop in the number of "foreigners" these jobs still won't be accessible.
Because the affordable child care doesn't exist. The viable public transport outside major cities doesn't exist. The ability to pay bills on net wages doesn't exist. Migrants didn't come and take our jobs, they were pulled in to fill the gaps in our workforce as a low wage high cost economic model increasingly made work not pay.
When I was unemployed during the early 1990s, the Tory government did not require me to take the first job that was offered. Instead, it allowed me to find the job that was right for me. That, in turn, put me on course to where I am now: having helped develop a business that employs over 20 well-paid individuals and paying a substantial amount of tax myself. Obviously, not everyone is going to have my fortune, but I am not unique. The vast majority of people are good, decent and honest - a welfare system that is not based on that assumption is ultimately not going to benefit anyone.
Indeed but that's not how the thinking is today. Getting people into work is much more about reducing the unemployment figures (good politically) and reducing the amount to be paid out in JSA and other employment-related welfare than improving the quality of life for individuals.
You can almost predict that with the withdrawal from the EU and "taking back control", we'll start seeing what few rights and benefits workers have chipped away in the name of "competition" or "globalisation" so it's the Working Time Directive now and it'll be the National Living Wage next - it'll have to be reduced so we can compete with Asia and other economies as we seek to make Global Britain an economic powerhouse - in order to ensure a regular supply of cheap labour.
Things like paid holiday, maternity and paternity rights will be on the list as we see the dystopia of Dysonism come to the fore.
It doesn't have to be like that but it'll be couched seductively and without menace but we all know what it will mean.
Nothing more represents the sickness of the political debate in this country than the endless focus on competing with Asia by reducing employment rights. We have a pretty flexible labour market by western standards. If we really wanted to do something about our competitiveness we would do something about the extortionate cost of land and housing in this country - 2nd only to Monaco I saw claimed recently. But no we can't do anything about that because it wouldn't please the asset owning classes so instead we clamp down on those least able to bear the burden. I'm sorry to say that liberals have been largely silent on this.
It is worth noting that several EU countries have strong manufacturing exports. We should not be too despondent. They have even achieved this with strong employment rights from within the EU.
It is almost as if Britons are looking for a scapegoat, rather than address the real problems of the country...
< True liberals ie economically and socially liberal would not people linger on benefits but require them to look for and take jobs and base benefits payments on contributions paid in. They also support free movement, free trade and lower taxes and lower regulation.
It is authoritarians who want to tax more and regulate more and spend more, often including on welfare, they just combine that with much tougher controls on immigration and greater emphasis on the nation state rather than globalisation, including sometimes supporting tariffs
"Require them to look for and take" sounds a shade authoritarian. One man's requirement is another one's diktat. Your definition of "liberalism" isn't mine but there you go.
Wanting more regulation in terms of for example improving public safety isn't authoritarian - should we take away the law compelling people to wear seat belts or ride motior bikes with crash helmets ?
Your definitions seem very confused and muddled as though you're trying desperately to make them fit a model - perhaps related to the EU Referendum ?
When I was unemployed during the early 1990s, the Tory government did not require me to take the first job that was offered. Instead, it allowed me to find the job that was right for me. That, in turn, put me on course to where I am now: having helped develop a business that employs over 20 well-paid individuals and paying a substantial amount of tax myself. Obviously, not everyone is going to have my fortune, but I am not unique. The vast majority of people are good, decent and honest - a welfare system that is not based on that assumption is ultimately not going to benefit anyone.
Yes these are the advantages to not letting the welfare state get out of control. It allows you more leeway when necessary.
Sadly we're well past that point now.
Yep - the Tories have their client vote to look after ;-)
And that is also why the NHS is safe in their hands! Crumbly Tories need it more than healthy middle-aged lefties....who probably have private insurance anyway.
When I was unemployed during the early 1990s, the Tory government did not require me to take the first job that was offered. Instead, it allowed me to find the job that was right for me. That, in turn, put me on course to where I am now: having helped develop a business that employs over 20 well-paid individuals and paying a substantial amount of tax myself. Obviously, not everyone is going to have my fortune, but I am not unique. The vast majority of people are good, decent and honest - a welfare system that is not based on that assumption is ultimately not going to benefit anyone.
Indeed but that's not how the thinking is today. Getting people into work is much more about reducing the unemployment figures (good politically) and reducing the amount to be paid out in JSA and other employment-related welfare than improving the quality of life for individuals.
You can almost predict that with the withdrawal from the EU and "taking back control", we'll start seeing what few rights and benefits workers have chipped away in the name of "competition" or "globalisation" so it's the Working Time Directive now and it'll be the National Living Wage next - it'll have to be reduced so we can compete with Asia and other economies as we seek to make Global Britain an economic powerhouse - in order to ensure a regular supply of cheap labour.
Things like paid holiday, maternity and paternity rights will be on the list as we see the dystopia of Dysonism come to the fore.
It doesn't have to be like that but it'll be couched seductively and without menace but we all know what it will mean.
Nothing more represents the sickness of the political debate in this country than the endless focus on competing with Asia by reducing employment rights. We have a pretty flexible labour market by western standards. If we really wanted to do something about our competitiveness we would do something about the extortionate cost of land and housing in this country - 2nd only to Monaco I saw claimed recently. But no we can't do anything about that because it wouldn't please the asset owning classes so instead we clamp down on those least able to bear the burden. I'm sorry to say that liberals have been largely silent on this.
It is worth noting that several EU countries have strong manufacturing exports. We should not be too despondent. They have even achieved this with strong employment rights from within the EU.
It is almost as if Britons are looking for a scapegoat, rather than address the real problems of the country...
Aren't Germany helped by the value of the Euro in that regard?
Barnier is absolutely right, if we want to end free movement and do our own free trade deals we have to leave the single market and customs union, leaving a Canada or South Korea style FTA the only option for a trade deal with the EU.
Not really a surprise that conservative people tend to vote Conservative.
But why do liberal people vote Labour rather than Liberal Democrat?
The voting system drives many such people (including those with political ambitions) toward Labour, except in those few areas where Liberals have a tradition and/or a competitive local campaign.
People need to understand that even if we manage to end free movement and get a significant drop in the number of "foreigners" these jobs still won't be accessible.
Because the affordable child care doesn't exist. The viable public transport outside major cities doesn't exist. The ability to pay bills on net wages doesn't exist. Migrants didn't come and take our jobs, they were pulled in to fill the gaps in our workforce as a low wage high cost economic model increasingly made work not pay.
It is not just the downward pressure on wages by free movement voters were concerned about but the pressure on services and housing too.
Immigrants taking jobs was less of an issue given the low rate of UK unemployment
< True liberals ie economically and socially liberal would not people linger on benefits but require them to look for and take jobs and base benefits payments on contributions paid in. They also support free movement, free trade and lower taxes and lower regulation.
It is authoritarians who want to tax more and regulate more and spend more, often including on welfare, they just combine that with much tougher controls on immigration and greater emphasis on the nation state rather than globalisation, including sometimes supporting tariffs
"Require them to look for and take" sounds a shade authoritarian. One man's requirement is another one's diktat. Your definition of "liberalism" isn't mine but there you go.
Wanting more regulation in terms of for example improving public safety isn't authoritarian - should we take away the law compelling people to wear seat belts or ride motior bikes with crash helmets ?
Your definitions seem very confused and muddled as though you're trying desperately to make them fit a model - perhaps related to the EU Referendum ?
When I was unemployed during the early 1990s, the Tory government did not require me to take the first job that was offered. Instead, it allowed me to find the job that was right for me. That, in turn, put me on course to where I am now: having helped develop a business that employs over 20 well-paid individuals and paying a substantial amount of tax myself. Obviously, not everyone is going to have my fortune, but I am not unique. The vast majority of people are good, decent and honest - a welfare system that is not based on that assumption is ultimately not going to benefit anyone.
Even now you can still look for a job just in your field for a few months if claiming JSA, after that you have to apply for any job going.
Which is the sensible approach. After a few months of unemployment it’s reasonable to expect someone to take a low-skilled service job (bar work, retail, driving etc) to ease the burden they place on the State. That said, I’d also support government subsidising training schemes targeted at the unemployed. Plenty of structural unemployment is about to happen and we need to be able to deal with it. More than anything else though, we need to make sure that everyone has a reason to get up in the morning and not become idle.
Barnier is absolutely right, if we want to end free movement and do our own free trade deals we have to leave the single market and customs union, leaving a Canada or South Korea style FTA the only option for a trade deal with the EU.
Yep - and that's why those red lines are going to turn the lightest shade of pink. If you can see them at all thanks to the blur.
Barnier is absolutely right, if we want to end free movement and do our own free trade deals we have to leave the single market and customs union, leaving a Canada or South Korea style FTA the only option for a trade deal with the EU.
I believe May also wants an FTA, per her Florence speech. Customs Union only is bonkers, the Single Market requires the Four Freedoms. Is this supposed to be some shocking revelation?
I suspect that we're playing semantics with the word 'bespoke'. All FTAs are bespoke, that's why they're so freaking complicated.
@larisamlbrown: EXCLUSIVE: Man arrested at RAF Mildenhall yesterday was armed with a teddy bear. Bear was strapped to his body when he forced way onto base in car
Just looked at the last two threads and whilst they are both interesting I think we ought to be careful in reading too much into them. How I chuckled at seeing the number of people who think the tabloids have a bad influence on Britain and how the 'unpatriotic' Guardian comes out on top. But maybe it's just a sign of how much difficulty pollsters have in getting enough working class people into their polls.
As for Curtice he may be right about the election but we need a little historical perspective here. We may have been moving towards a more social liberal/conservative divide for a while but remember that this was a very particular general election - almost unique - and to assume it sets in stone our future political structure is a mistake. I would be surprised if we didn't see some reversal to a traditional left right divide next time which is unlikely to be a specifically Brexit election.
The Mirror had a net negative rating, the Telegraph a net positive rating
@larisamlbrown: EXCLUSIVE: Man arrested at RAF Mildenhall yesterday was armed with a teddy bear. Bear was strapped to his body when he forced way onto base in car
I hope they throw the book at him for wasting everyone's time.
The use of the Sanctions regime to try to keep a cap on the cost of benefits was immoral. The delays built into the provision of UC was obscene and is even now only partially addressed, the operation of fitness to work criteria through ATOS was disgusting.
What all of these failures have in common is a lack of empathy with the feckless, incompetent and needy in our society. I don’t think this is a party issue so much as a government one. When policy is produced and implemented by producer interests with their convenience in mind vulnerable people get hurt. One party trying to claim the moral high ground in this area really doesn’t help address the issue although I would accept that some on the left have done more to highlight the consequences than many on the right.
It’s worth pointing out also that the estimates of benefit fraud are that it is very low. A risk based approach would have the govt doing much less on it compared to other kinds of fraud. But benefit fraud really really angers the public and is obviously hyped up by certain newspapers.
I don’t think we will see the Conservatives address the issues you talk about. Benefit fraud is just too good an issue for them - a real vote winner.
it's not just benefit fraud that angers people, it's generations of people getting welfare to pop out kids, contributing nothing to society and acting like arseholes. People who have worked hard and fallen on hard times get nothing, whilst scumbags never pay a penny and get everything paid for.
What's more concerning is the cultural change and sense of entitlement. For example in the case that @Sandpit gave earlier: 30 years ago virtually no one would have thought that acceptable behaviour - now people nod and shrug
I think it’s gone the other way entirely. The outrage level over benefits cheats is surely as high as it’s ever been.
As SO pointed out - a while back people didn’t mind you waiting for a job in your field - that’s all changed now. The stigma around being on benefits is huge.
When I was unemployed during the early 1990s, the Tory government did not require me to take the first job that was offered. Instead, it allowed me to find the job that was right for me. That, in turn, put me on course to where I am now: having helped develop a business that employs over 20 well-paid individuals and paying a substantial amount of tax myself. Obviously, not everyone is going to have my fortune, but I am not unique. The vast majority of people are good, decent and honest - a welfare system that is not based on that assumption is ultimately not going to benefit anyone.
I think that was acceptable previously when the state was able to afford unemployment benefits. Today we pay child tax credits, we pay housing benefits, we pay unemployment benefits, we pay income tax credits and self employment tax credits. In addition the state pension bill just keeps rising as the retirement age has fallen well behind life expectancy. I've said it here before, with most people agreeing, the only way forwards is to make work pay so we don't need to pay in work benefits which will take the pressure off the unemployed process. When the state is paying £30bn in benefits to people who have jobs, something isn't working properly.
I also agree that people should be given time to find what they want to do and have the state assist them. At the moment only middle class school leavers/graduates have the opportunity to waste a few months to find what they want to do, working class young people are being forced to take the first opportunity that comes their way which can lead to bad life choices.
Surely working tax credits are one of the main reasons for unemployment being so low. They make it possible to employ people whose labour would otherwise be insufficiently valuable for them to earn a liveable wage. In a sense, they amount to a poorly-implemented citizens' income, and it seems to me that such schemes are necessary for today's workplace, which places little value on unskilled labour, if we are to avoid mass unemployment.
The original problem is that we've apparently given up on these people ever being productive enough to have a chance of a decent job and honest wage without needing subsidises. Shouldn't we try and fix that?
The problem those in the liberal centre have is that they understand that this is a complicated world and that solutions to its inequalities are not easy to find - and even less easier to condense into Tweets and Facebook memes. People like Trump have no such issues and no great attachment to democracy, so do not worry about being dishonest. They will say whatever it takes. But in the end they will either lose power, because their solutions do not work; or they will need to engineer power grabs that allow them to stay in charge even when voters do not want them to.
I am not so sure. If I look at the world's happiest and most prosperous countries I see countries where the liberal centre is in charge. I also see tax reform becoming a much bigger issue. It will take time and it will take international coordination - and we can expect the US to play no part (and the UK, too, post-Brexit), but it is going to happen. In the end, if there is democracy, the liberal centre - right or left, back and forth - will prevail because it is where most people sit. There are convulsions from time to time, but eventually everything reverts to the norm - unless guns prevent it.
One of the subjects missing from all the talk of the EU trade deal is whether it will allow Britain to take the opportunity to force large multinationals selling intangibles onshore. Right now all the UK sales of the major US tech companies go through an EU office in Ireland or Luxembourg.
Depends what you mean by forcing it onshore. Within existing tax frameworks we can already a fair apportionment tax profits of non-resident companies arising from U.K. onshore economic activity and I suspect that would get harder rather than easier as a result of leaving (less harmonisation = grater arbitrage opportunities).
What we can’t currently do is erect too many barriers to EU residents trading into the U.K. - we could have far greater restrictions on acting in the U.K. if a company is not fully located here if we were not bound by EU rules (But the tax base would still be eroded in many cases, eg if a U.K. subsidiary paid management charges etc to its non U.K. affiliates). The problem is that a more protectionist tax system is definitely possible but it’s hard to square that with a desire to grow trade with non-EU countries.
People need to understand that even if we manage to end free movement and get a significant drop in the number of "foreigners" these jobs still won't be accessible.
Because the affordable child care doesn't exist. The viable public transport outside major cities doesn't exist. The ability to pay bills on net wages doesn't exist. Migrants didn't come and take our jobs, they were pulled in to fill the gaps in our workforce as a low wage high cost economic model increasingly made work not pay.
It is not just the downward pressure on wages by free movement voters were concerned about but the pressure on services and housing too.
Immigrants taking jobs was less of an issue given the low rate of UK unemployment
Low rate of unemployment. High rate of economic inactivity. So many people forced into doing nothing at all...
Is the Canada deal an exact replica of the Korean deal? If not, it suggests that they do have some flexibility in negotiations...
Absolutely they have some flexibility in negotiations.
Otherwise all of those agreements would be the same - the Norwegian one was a variation on what had gone before etc..
I think Barnier is currently doing the mini-King-Kong posturing thing that we had just after the referendum, except that he is currently perched atop a game of Jenga waving at paper aeroplanes.
People need to understand that even if we manage to end free movement and get a significant drop in the number of "foreigners" these jobs still won't be accessible.
Because the affordable child care doesn't exist. The viable public transport outside major cities doesn't exist. The ability to pay bills on net wages doesn't exist. Migrants didn't come and take our jobs, they were pulled in to fill the gaps in our workforce as a low wage high cost economic model increasingly made work not pay.
It is not just the downward pressure on wages by free movement voters were concerned about but the pressure on services and housing too.
Immigrants taking jobs was less of an issue given the low rate of UK unemployment
The pressure on services is not primarily from migrants.
In the NHS the vast majority of expenditure is on the over 65's, and increasingly the over 75's. These are heavily weighted to British born, or immigrants in the 60's and 70's. More recent immigrants have had effect on certain areas, such as maternity, but without these children we would have a much worse demographic timebomb.
As I have pointed out here on multiple occasions, on current migration figures, the working age population remains static over the next decade. The population increase of 2.5 million by 2030 is the over 65's.
"While only 2.64 per cent of EU GDP is at risk because of Brexit trade-related consequences, 12.2 per cent of UK GDP is threatened. And in a cruel irony, the UK regions which voted Leave (such as the Midlands and the North) are significantly more exposed than those which voted Remain. "
"While only 2.64 per cent of EU GDP is at risk because of Brexit trade-related consequences, 12.2 per cent of UK GDP is threatened. And in a cruel irony, the UK regions which voted Leave (such as the Midlands and the North) are significantly more exposed than those which voted Remain. "
Now we are heading for a Canada FTA that is wrong. A FTA that avoids most tariffs on manufacturing exports and ends free movement will suit Leave areas quite nicely thankyou.
It is the Remain voting London and the City which will be hit most by leaving the single market
Canada or Korea looks sensible to me, just checked the tariffs for my industry, 0% under Canada - 1.7 -> 2% under 3rd party WTO.
Very bad for farmers and the auto industry, as well as financial and other services.
WTO is worse. For everyone.
Yep, I know. There are no good options. It's all about finding the least bad one from here.
WTO - that only works for the people who claim to know more about car manufacturing than Honda
FTA - unachievable in 2 years, kills the City
We sure about those red lines...? Lets be honest, they are only red lines because delusional wazzocks think they can persuade the EU into breaking its own rules and giving us a bespoke deal its so far refused to everyone, that it will do so in record time, and that such a deal will be passed by 27 parliaments in a few months.
Once it becomes clear that they can't deliver the fantasy, and industry tells them (again, it already has in the 'whoops sorry we were mistaken we haven't looked at the impact' reports) that WTO means the UK is fucked, you wonder if they have the balls to change their tune, or will we be back to going over the cliff.
People need to understand that even if we manage to end free movement and get a significant drop in the number of "foreigners" these jobs still won't be accessible.
Because the affordable child care doesn't exist. The viable public transport outside major cities doesn't exist. The ability to pay bills on net wages doesn't exist. Migrants didn't come and take our jobs, they were pulled in to fill the gaps in our workforce as a low wage high cost economic model increasingly made work not pay.
It is not just the downward pressure on wages by free movement voters were concerned about but the pressure on services and housing too.
Immigrants taking jobs was less of an issue given the low rate of UK unemployment
The pressure on services is not primarily from migrants.
In the NHS the vast majority of expenditure is on the over 65's, and increasingly the over 75's. These are heavily weighted to British born, or immigrants in the 60's and 70's. More recent immigrants have had effect on certain areas, such as maternity, but without these children we would have a much worse demographic timebomb.
As I have pointed out here on multiple occasions, on current migration figures, the working age population remains static over the next decade. The population increase of 2.5 million by 2030 is the over 65's.
Every year there are thousands of A level students desperate to get into med school, and being turned away. It is the lack of uni places that is causing the shortage, not a lack of people wanting to be doctors.
People need to understand that even if we manage to end free movement and get a significant drop in the number of "foreigners" these jobs still won't be accessible.
Because the affordable child care doesn't exist. The viable public transport outside major cities doesn't exist. The ability to pay bills on net wages doesn't exist. Migrants didn't come and take our jobs, they were pulled in to fill the gaps in our workforce as a low wage high cost economic model increasingly made work not pay.
It is not just the downward pressure on wages by free movement voters were concerned about but the pressure on services and housing too.
Immigrants taking jobs was less of an issue given the low rate of UK unemployment
The pressure on services is not primarily from migrants.
In the NHS the vast majority of expenditure is on the over 65's, and increasingly the over 75's. These are heavily weighted to British born, or immigrants in the 60's and 70's. More recent immigrants have had effect on certain areas, such as maternity, but without these children we would have a much worse demographic timebomb.
As I have pointed out here on multiple occasions, on current migration figures, the working age population remains static over the next decade. The population increase of 2.5 million by 2030 is the over 65's.
The government is, of course, expanding training places for nurses etc and the majority of doctors and nurses here are still UK born. The retirement age is also increasing to 67
When I was unemployed during the early 1990s, the Tory government did not require me to take the first job that was offered. Instead, it allowed me to find the job that was right for me. That, in turn, put me on course to where I am now: having helped develop a business that employs over 20 well-paid individuals and paying a substantial amount of tax myself. Obviously, not everyone is going to have my fortune, but I am not unique. The vast majority of people are good, decent and honest - a welfare system that is not based on that assumption is ultimately not going to benefit anyone.
I think that was acceptable previously when the state was able to afford unemployment benefits. Today we pay child tax credits, we pay housing benefits, we pay unemployment benefits, we pay income tax credits and self employment tax credits. In addition the state pension bill just keeps rising as the retirement age has fallen well behind life expectancy. I've said it here before, with most people agreeing, the only way forwards is to make work pay so we don't need to pay in work benefits which will take the pressure off the unemployed process. When the state is paying £30bn in benefits to people who have jobs, something isn't working properly.
I also agree that people should be given time to find what they want to do and have the state assist them. At the moment only middle class school leavers/graduates have the opportunity to waste a few months to find what they want to do, working class young people are being forced to take the first opportunity that comes their way which can lead to bad life choices.
Surely working tax credits are one of the main reasons for unemployment being so low. They make it possible to employ people whose labour would otherwise be insufficiently valuable for them to earn a liveable wage. In a sense, they amount to a poorly-implemented citizens' income, and it seems to me that such schemes are necessary for today's workplace, which places little value on unskilled labour, if we are to avoid mass unemployment.
The original problem is that we've apparently given up on these people ever being productive enough to have a chance of a decent job and honest wage without needing subsidises. Shouldn't we try and fix that?
I'm not sure it's actually fixable in the long run. Yes, of course education and training has to be a priority, but ultimately an increasing number of people will simply be unable to earn sufficient money to live on without subsidy as the demand for unskilled and low-skilled labour diminishes. Better to subsidise low productivity and a little self esteem than to pay out benefits for no productivity and no self-esteem!
Difficult to predict how this will all pan out. I suspect Theresa will negotiate something almost identical to EU membership ostensibly as a stopgap while we sort our sh*t out. It will then be up to her successor - Boris, Rees-Mogg or whoever - not to renew that stopgap when the time comes. We'll then see if they have the courage of their rhetoric or will opt instead for a quiet life.
People need to understand that even if we manage to end free movement and get a significant drop in the number of "foreigners" these jobs still won't be accessible.
Because the affordable child care doesn't exist. The viable public transport outside major cities doesn't exist. The ability to pay bills on net wages doesn't exist. Migrants didn't come and take our jobs, they were pulled in to fill the gaps in our workforce as a low wage high cost economic model increasingly made work not pay.
It is not just the downward pressure on wages by free movement voters were concerned about but the pressure on services and housing too.
Immigrants taking jobs was less of an issue given the low rate of UK unemployment
The pressure on services is not primarily from migrants.
In the NHS the vast majority of expenditure is on the over 65's, and increasingly the over 75's. These are heavily weighted to British born, or immigrants in the 60's and 70's. More recent immigrants have had effect on certain areas, such as maternity, but without these children we would have a much worse demographic timebomb.
As I have pointed out here on multiple occasions, on current migration figures, the working age population remains static over the next decade. The population increase of 2.5 million by 2030 is the over 65's.
The government is, of course, expanding training places for nurses etc and the majority of doctors and nurses here are still UK born. The retirement age is also increasing to 67
And slashing the funding available for training making the profession evermore less attractive at just the wrong moment. Its like the wisdom of slashing HMRC tax inspector jobs at the same time as saying we need to collect more taxes, have they actually looked at the detail or does the rhetoric trump reality?
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
< True liberals ie economically and socially liberal would not people linger on benefits but require them to look for and take jobs and base benefits payments on contributions paid in. They also support free movement, free trade and lower taxes and lower regulation.
It is authoritarians who want to tax more and regulate more and spend more, often including on welfare, they just combine that with much tougher controls on immigration and greater emphasis on the nation state rather than globalisation, including sometimes supporting tariffs
"Require them to look for and take" sounds a shade authoritarian. One man's requirement is another one's diktat. Your definition of "liberalism" isn't mine but there you go.
Wanting more regulation in terms of for example improving public safety isn't authoritarian - should we take away the law compelling people to wear seat belts or ride motior bikes with crash helmets ?
Your definitions seem very confused and muddled as though you're trying desperately to make them fit a model - perhaps related to the EU Referendum ?
When I was unemployed during the early 1990s, the Tory government did not require me to take the first job that was offered. Instead, it allowed me to find the job that was right for me. That, in turn, put me on course to where I am now: having helped develop a business that employs over 20 well-paid individuals and paying a substantial amount of tax myself. Obviously, not everyone is going to have my fortune, but I am not unique. The vast majority of people are good, decent and honest - a welfare system that is not based on that assumption is ultimately not going to benefit anyone.
Even now you can still look for a job just in your field for a few months if claiming JSA, after that you have to apply for any job going.
Which is the sensible approach. After a few months of unemployment it’s reasonable to expect someone to take a low-skilled service job (bar work, retail, driving etc) to ease the burden they place on the State. That said, I’d also support government subsidising training schemes targeted at the unemployed. Plenty of structural unemployment is about to happen and we need to be able to deal with it. More than anything else though, we need to make sure that everyone has a reason to get up in the morning and not become idle.
Yes and they can still apply for jobs in their specialist field and take leave for interview. Training schemes are also sensible
Barnier is absolutely right, if we want to end free movement and do our own free trade deals we have to leave the single market and customs union, leaving a Canada or South Korea style FTA the only option for a trade deal with the EU.
Yep - and that's why those red lines are going to turn the lightest shade of pink. If you can see them at all thanks to the blur.
As long as free movement ends that is the main thing
I'm not sure it's actually fixable in the long run. Yes, of course education and training has to be a priority, but ultimately an increasing number of people will simply be unable to earn sufficient money to live on without subsidy as the demand for unskilled and low-skilled labour diminishes. Better to subsidise low productivity and a little self esteem than to pay out benefits for no productivity and no self-esteem!
I wonder how the Swiss achieve it then. Are they just smarter than British people?
Barnier is absolutely right, if we want to end free movement and do our own free trade deals we have to leave the single market and customs union, leaving a Canada or South Korea style FTA the only option for a trade deal with the EU.
I believe May also wants an FTA, per her Florence speech. Customs Union only is bonkers, the Single Market requires the Four Freedoms. Is this supposed to be some shocking revelation?
I suspect that we're playing semantics with the word 'bespoke'. All FTAs are bespoke, that's why they're so freaking complicated.
< True liberals ie economically and socially liberal would not people linger on benefits but require them to look for and take jobs and base benefits payments on contributions paid in. They also support free movement, free trade and lower taxes and lower regulation.
It is authoritarians who want to tax more and regulate more and spend more, often including on welfare, they just combine that with much tougher controls on immigration and greater emphasis on the nation state rather than globalisation, including sometimes supporting tariffs
"Require them to look for and take" sounds a shade authoritarian. One man's requirement is another one's diktat. Your definition of "liberalism" isn't mine but there you go.
Wanting more regulation in terms of for example improving public safety isn't authoritarian - should we take away the law compelling people to wear seat belts or ride motior bikes with crash helmets ?
Your definitions seem very confused and muddled as though you're trying desperately to make them fit a model - perhaps related to the EU Referendum ?
When I was unemployed during the early 1990s, the Tory government did not require me to take the first job that was offered. Instead, it allowed me to find the job that was right for me. That, in turn, put me on course to where I am now: having helped develop a business that employs over 20 well-paid individuals and paying a substantial amount of tax myself. Obviously, not everyone is going to have my fortune, but I am not unique. The vast majority of people are good, decent and honest - a welfare system that is not based on that assumption is ultimately not going to benefit anyone.
Even now you can still look for a job just in your field for a few months if claiming JSA, after that you have to apply for any job going.
Which is the sensible approach. After a few months of unemployment it’s reasonable to expect someone to take a low-skilled service job (bar work, retail, driving etc) to ease the burden they place on the State. That said, I’d also support government subsidising training schemes targeted at the unemployed. Plenty of structural unemployment is about to happen and we need to be able to deal with it. More than anything else though, we need to make sure that everyone has a reason to get up in the morning and not become idle.
Yes and they can still apply for jobs in their specialist field and take leave for interview. Training schemes are also sensible
With respect, you don't appear to understand how the benefits system actually works.
Have you claimed JSA/UC yourself, or had any involvement with the system recently?
Is the Canada deal an exact replica of the Korean deal? If not, it suggests that they do have some flexibility in negotiations...
Absolutely they have some flexibility in negotiations.
Otherwise all of those agreements would be the same - the Norwegian one was a variation on what had gone before etc..
I think Barnier is currently doing the mini-King-Kong posturing thing that we had just after the referendum, except that he is currently perched atop a game of Jenga waving at paper aeroplanes.
In due course they will calm down a little.
It gives Scottc something to post...endlessly and witlessly.....
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should they change their red lines? What's in it for them?
< True liberals ie economically and socially liberal would not people linger on benefits but require them to look for and take jobs and base benefits payments on contributions paid in. They also support free movement, free trade and lower taxes and lower regulation.
It is authoritarians who want to tax more and regulate more and spend more, often including on welfare, they just combine that with much tougher controls on immigration and greater emphasis on the nation state rather than globalisation, including sometimes supporting tariffs
"Require them to look for and take" sounds a shade authoritarian. One man's requirement is another one's diktat. Your definition of "liberalism" isn't mine but there you go.
Wanting more regulation in terms of for example improving public safety isn't authoritarian - should we take away the law compelling people to wear seat belts or ride motior bikes with crash helmets ?
Your definitions seem very confused and muddled as though you're trying desperately to make them fit a model - perhaps related to the EU Referendum ?
When I was unemployed during the early 1990s, the Tory government did not is ultimately not going to benefit anyone.
Even now you can still look for a job just in your field for a few months if claiming JSA, after that you have to apply for any job going.
Which is the sensible approach. After a few months of unemployment it’s reasonable to expect someone to take a low-skilled service job (bar work, retail, driving etc) to ease the burden they place on the State. That said, I’d also support government subsidising training schemes targeted at the unemployed. Plenty of structural unemployment is about to happen and we need to be able to deal with it. More than anything else though, we need to make sure that everyone has a reason to get up in the morning and not become idle.
Yes and they can still apply for jobs in their specialist field and take leave for interview. Training schemes are also sensible
With respect, you don't appear to understand how the benefits system actually works.
Have you claimed JSA/UC yourself, or had any involvement with the system recently?
I have indeed briefly but only contributions based JSA so I know how the system works. You get a few months to apply in your field then you must apply for everything.
Even working in a bar you can still keep applying for jobs in your field
Canada or Korea looks sensible to me, just checked the tariffs for my industry, 0% under Canada - 1.7 -> 2% under 3rd party WTO.
Very bad for farmers and the auto industry, as well as financial and other services.
Not true in the case of Farmers. The NFU did a detailed study of he effects of Brexit including a WTO form and found that all scenarios were better than staying in as far as trade was concerned. The area where it is very bad for them is losing subsidies and of course that is in the hands of the Government. Should the Government choose to consider the same level of farm subsidy (and I am not suggesting they should) then all forms of Brexit benefit UK farming.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules? We are the ones leaving and it is our government that has chosen to interpret the referendum result in the way that it has. There are consequences to decisions made at the ballot box and in the Cabinet room, and the people who took them have responsibility for them.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
'Blame' is an odd choice of word, as if it's the rest of the world's fault that the UK isn't able to have everything its own way.
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules? We are the ones leaving and it is our government that has chosen to interpret the referendum result in the way that it has. There are consequences to decisions made at the ballot box and in the Cabinet room, and the people who took them have responsibility for them.
They managed to negotiate new deals with Korea and Canada that were unlike those that preceded them.
People need to understand that even if we manage to end free movement and get a significant drop in the number of "foreigners" these jobs still won't be accessible.
Because the affordable child care doesn't exist. The viable public transport outside major cities doesn't exist. The ability to pay bills on net wages doesn't exist. Migrants didn't come and take our jobs, they were pulled in to fill the gaps in our workforce as a low wage high cost economic model increasingly made work not pay.
It is not just the downward pressure on wages by free movement voters were concerned about but the pressure on services and housing too.
Immigrants taking jobs was less of an issue given the low rate of UK unemployment
The pressure on services is not primarily from migrants.
In the NHS the vast majority of expenditure is on the over 65's, and increasingly the over 75's. These are heavily weighted to British born, or immigrants in the 60's and 70's. More recent immigrants have had effect on certain areas, such as maternity, but without these children we would have a much worse demographic timebomb.
As I have pointed out here on multiple occasions, on current migration figures, the working age population remains static over the next decade. The population increase of 2.5 million by 2030 is the over 65's.
No national politician is brave enough to say that we need immigration. And I suspect we will see young people emigrating in greater numbers in future - when you aren’t tied down by families/social connections in the same way - it’s much easier to move to Aus/Canada etc.
Have you seen an increase in junior doctors going abroad, anecdotally?
It also shows how EU red lines result in that. It doesn't state them but they're implicit in the arrows. Nowhere are the EU's principles up for discussion. Let's not just blame one side in this.
Why should the EU change its rules?
Because it might want to retain it's huge trade surplus ?
People need to understand that even if we manage to end free movement and get a significant drop in the number of "foreigners" these jobs still won't be accessible.
Because the affordable child care doesn't exist. The viable public transport outside major cities doesn't exist. The ability to pay bills on net wages doesn't exist. Migrants didn't come and take our jobs, they were pulled in to fill the gaps in our workforce as a low wage high cost economic model increasingly made work not pay.
It is not just the downward pressure on wages by free movement voters were concerned about but the pressure on services and housing too.
Immigrants taking jobs was less of an issue given the low rate of UK unemployment
The pressure on services is not primarily from migrants.
In the NHS the vast majority of expenditure is on the over 65's, and increasingly the over 75's. These are heavily weighted to British born, or immigrants in the 60's and 70's. More recent immigrants have had effect on certain areas, such as maternity, but without these children we would have a much worse demographic timebomb.
As I have pointed out here on multiple occasions, on current migration figures, the working age population remains static over the next decade. The population increase of 2.5 million by 2030 is the over 65's.
Every year there are thousands of A level students desperate to get into med school, and being turned away. It is the lack of uni places that is causing the shortage, not a lack of people wanting to be doctors.
To an extent. I was interviewing for Leicester Medical School, and this tranchewas very capable (by end Feb the field is a lot thinner). The problem with medical staff is in retention and in postgraduate specialist training. Retention rates are sinking by the year. Some migrate, but the increasing trend is to leave the profession.
Comments
As for Curtice he may be right about the election but we need a little historical perspective here. We may have been moving towards a more social liberal/conservative divide for a while but remember that this was a very particular general election - almost unique - and to assume it sets in stone our future political structure is a mistake. I would be surprised if we didn't see some reversal to a traditional left right divide next time which is unlikely to be a specifically Brexit election.
It would only happen if say Gove or Rees-Mogg became PM, both of whom are economically right-wing and neoliberal.
And what is the link between house prices and competitiveness? I assume by paying the workers less to make exports cheaper?
In a purely liberal world wearing seat belts or crash helmets would be up to the individual, it is tgey who are taking the risk.
That is a purely libertarian world, if I may say so.
Liberals, as per their philosophy, have to consider the common good.
In this way the common good is served by protecting not only the individual but also society at large.
So seat belts and crash helmets protect the individual but also society.
I'm thinking of the costs to NHS (society pays monetarily) from accidents that are worse because said individual was NOT wearing seat belt or crash helmet.
Then the costs paid by first responders (mental health for example) in having to deal with the scenes of accidents that are worse because said individual was NOT wearing seat belt or crash helmet.
Liberals, as per their philosophy, have to consider the common good.
In this way the common good is served by protecting not only the individual but also society at large.
So seat belts and crash helmets protect the individual but also society.
I'm thinking of the costs to NHS (society pays monetarily) from accidents that are worse because said individual was NOT wearing seat belt or crash helmet.
Then the costs paid by first responders (mental health for example) in having to deal with the scenes of accidents that are worse because said individual was NOT wearing seat belt or crash helmet.
PR is needed for this country so that there are both Pro-EU and Anti-EU versions of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrats.
I also agree that people should be given time to find what they want to do and have the state assist them. At the moment only middle class school leavers/graduates have the opportunity to waste a few months to find what they want to do, working class young people are being forced to take the first opportunity that comes their way which can lead to bad life choices.
https://order-order.com/2017/12/19/report-finds-no-significant-russian-activity-during-referendum/
That is a purely libertarian world, if I may say so.
Liberals, as per their philosophy, have to consider the common good.
In this way the common good is served by protecting not only the individual but also society at large.
So seat belts and crash helmets protect the individual but also society.
I'm thinking of the costs to NHS (society pays monetarily) from accidents that are worse because said individual was NOT wearing seat belt or crash helmet.
Then the costs paid by first responders (mental health for example) in having to deal with the scenes of accidents that are worse because said individual was NOT wearing seat belt or crash helmet.'
Pure Liberals are focused on individual freedom, it is authoritarians who are focused on the supposed 'common good.' Individuals can take out private medical insurance or pay the costs themselves for treatment for any injuries suffered from not wearing a seat belt etc in a pure liberal society, not taxpayers.
Add "We'll have to rerun becas' dem Russians" to the long list of other false Remainy hopes: Chapman, the Article 50 Court Case, the Florence Speech which was going to be a U Turn etc etc...
It was responsible for Brexit. No, really: it was (in part anyway - but in no small part).
That means an actual difference of £104 per year (£1101 rather than £997), or exactly £2 a week, for that particular slice of earnings.
Another SNP Bad story blown out of all proportion.
But why do liberal people vote Labour rather than Liberal Democrat?
I had a brief claim in 2014 for UC/HB, which I thought I'd moved on from - but then a few months later, my former flatmate who had moved to a new address was having letters from bailiffs attempting to reclaim a £1k debt in my name.
The system had made a pile of horrible - and ridiculous - assumptions (I assume) without any human input and concluded I'd claimed HB fraudulently and then automatically sold the artificial debt to a collection agency.
Obviously, I'd followed the system through like a hawk - made sure I ticked every box correctly & only claimed what I could/should be claiming etc etc - and as soon as a human being looked at the claim it got resolved - but the system as it was set up had automatically assumed the worst.
I support the principle of reforming the benefits system to incentivize work etc, but it seems to me like the tories took an already crappy system and managed to screw it up even more. It doesn't need the inbuilt, automated hostility and cynical assumptions.
That was the choice of the conservative party.
It makes me really f*cking angry.
Because the affordable child care doesn't exist. The viable public transport outside major cities doesn't exist. The ability to pay bills on net wages doesn't exist. Migrants didn't come and take our jobs, they were pulled in to fill the gaps in our workforce as a low wage high cost economic model increasingly made work not pay.
It is almost as if Britons are looking for a scapegoat, rather than address the real problems of the country...
Lol.
I'm sure the country won't miss our tax revenues.
The choice is Canada/Korea or WTO.
Immigrants taking jobs was less of an issue given the low rate of UK unemployment
I suspect that we're playing semantics with the word 'bespoke'. All FTAs are bespoke, that's why they're so freaking complicated.
The outrage level over benefits cheats is surely as high as it’s ever been.
As SO pointed out - a while back people didn’t mind you waiting for a job in your field - that’s all changed now. The stigma around being on benefits is huge.
Judges give judgment, instead.
What we can’t currently do is erect too many barriers to EU residents trading into the U.K. - we could have far greater restrictions on acting in the U.K. if a company is not fully located here if we were not bound by EU rules (But the tax base would still be eroded in many cases, eg if a U.K. subsidiary paid management charges etc to its non U.K. affiliates). The problem is that a more protectionist tax system is definitely possible but it’s hard to square that with a desire to grow trade with non-EU countries.
Otherwise all of those agreements would be the same - the Norwegian one was a variation on what had gone before etc..
I think Barnier is currently doing the mini-King-Kong posturing thing that we had just after the referendum, except that he is currently perched atop a game of Jenga waving at paper aeroplanes.
In due course they will calm down a little.
https://twitter.com/doctor_oxford/status/942880841809657857
In the NHS the vast majority of expenditure is on the over 65's, and increasingly the over 75's. These are heavily weighted to British born, or immigrants in the 60's and 70's. More recent immigrants have had effect on certain areas, such as maternity, but without these children we would have a much worse demographic timebomb.
As I have pointed out here on multiple occasions, on current migration figures, the working age population remains static over the next decade. The population increase of 2.5 million by 2030 is the over 65's.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/figures/doi/10.1111/pirs.12334#figure-viewer-pirs12334-fig-0003
"While only 2.64 per cent of EU GDP is at risk because of Brexit trade-related consequences, 12.2 per cent of UK GDP is threatened. And in a cruel irony, the UK regions which voted Leave (such as the Midlands and the North) are significantly more exposed than those which voted Remain. "
(Possibly NSFW is from The Commons though)
https://order-order.com/2017/12/19/ministers-christmas-prophy-laugh-tic/
It is the Remain voting London and the City which will be hit most by leaving the single market
FTA - unachievable in 2 years, kills the City
We sure about those red lines...? Lets be honest, they are only red lines because delusional wazzocks think they can persuade the EU into breaking its own rules and giving us a bespoke deal its so far refused to everyone, that it will do so in record time, and that such a deal will be passed by 27 parliaments in a few months.
Once it becomes clear that they can't deliver the fantasy, and industry tells them (again, it already has in the 'whoops sorry we were mistaken we haven't looked at the impact' reports) that WTO means the UK is fucked, you wonder if they have the balls to change their tune, or will we be back to going over the cliff.
https://twitter.com/ScotNational/status/943089208700399616
Have you claimed JSA/UC yourself, or had any involvement with the system recently?
Even working in a bar you can still keep applying for jobs in your field
Wants its cake of being able to ship goods and the money but is totally inflexible on financial services.
Looks like their intransigence will earn them a hard Brexit.
And I suspect we will see young people emigrating in greater numbers in future - when you aren’t tied down by families/social connections in the same way - it’s much easier to move to Aus/Canada etc.
Have you seen an increase in junior doctors going abroad, anecdotally?
https://twitter.com/jonworth/status/943067653341696000